2004 (9) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elates to the rejection of their refund claim of Rs. 5,41,781/- and adjustment of duty of Rs. 4,89,909/-. 2. I have heard both the sides. The refund claim of Rs. 5,41,781/- of the appellants have been rejected on the ground of limitation as the duty was not paid under protest. But it remains undisputed that order under which the duty was paid by the appellants, was challenged by them before the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Kolkata [2002 (148) E.L.T. 1243]. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim of the appellants as time barred cannot be sustained and is set aside. 3. The adjustment of Rs. 4,89,909/- from the refund claim of the appellants has been made on the ground that this amount was payable by them on account of classification issue decided by the Tribunal in respect of their products, but .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t is entitled to adjust the same, cannot be sustained for having not so far raised through any show cause notice under Section 11-A of the Act. There is also no confirmation of that demand by any competent authority. This view finds support from the ratio of law laid down in Indian Oil Corporation v. CCE [1991 (54) E.L.T. 110] which has been upheld by the apex Court in Collector v. Indian Oil Corp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X